The Clean Cut Throat Wound

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Except that you are wrong when you say that Kennedy suffered a shallow wound in soft tissue.  The wound was completely tracked from back to front.  You'd know this if you would read the autopsy report.

Accounts from the autopsy put the lie to this claim.

FBI SA O’Neill: “A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK.”

What part of that eludes you?

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

I always find it comical when one criticizes something which they have obviously never read.  Well, comical and pathetic at the same time.

 

You obviously can’t process information that runs counter to your pet theory.  

Edited June 4, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Bill Brown]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Bill Brown: please explain this. I am asking earnestly, not rhetorically. 

 

Sure thing.

 

From the Pathological Examination Report:

 

"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck.  This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung.  The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck.  As far as can be ascertained, this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."

 

[Bill Brown]

10 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Accounts from the autopsy put the lie to this claim.

FBI SA O’Neill: “A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK.”

What part of that eludes you?

You obviously can’t process information that runs counter to your pet theory.  

 

Sibert and O'Neill observed "Humes et al" considering the possibility that the President was struck by a "high tech weapon" (your words, no one else's).

 

Somehow, you're foolishly attempting to get that to evolve into "Humes et al" actually THOUGHT Kennedy was struck by a high tech weapon firing off missiles that would eventually dissolve.

 

It's sad that you don't understand the difference.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Sibert and O'Neill observed "Humes et al" considering the possibility that the President was struck by a "high tech weapon" (your words, no one else's).

“A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK.” — Francis O’Neill

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Somehow, you're foolishly attempting to get that to evolve into "Humes et al" actually THOUGHT Kennedy was struck by a high tech weapon firing off missiles that would eventually dissolve.

They seriously considered that.  It’s part of the historical record.

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

It's sad that you don't understand the difference.

 

It’s sad you can’t process this —

“A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK.”

What part of — “a general feeling existed” — don’t you understand?

Edited June 4, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Bill Brown]

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

“A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK.” — Francis O’Neill

They seriously considered that.  It’s part of the historical record.

It’s sad you can’t process this —

“A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. “

What part of “a general feeling existed” don’t you understand?

 

You quoted O'Neill: "“A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK."

 

First, you're quoting O'Neill and automatically attributing that to what "Humes et al" actually THOUGHT happened.

 

Second, even IF "Humes et al" believed Kennedy was struck by a soft-nosed bullet, how does that automatically translate to your claim that "Humes et al" THOUGHT Kennedy was struck by a high tech weapon firing missiles which would dissolve?

 

Look.  I get it.  You said something you shouldn't have.  It happens.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

You quoted O'Neill: "“A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK."

 

First, you're quoting O'Neill and automatically attributing that to what "Humes et al" actually THOUGHT happened.

I didn’t say Humes et al concluded JFK was hit with a high tech weapon — I used the phrase “seriously considered.”

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Second, even IF "Humes et al" believed Kennedy was struck by a soft-nosed bullet, how does that automatically translate to your claim that "Humes et al" THOUGHT Kennedy was struck by a high tech weapon firing missiles which would dissolve?

“A general feeling” is not a conclusion.  Never said it was.

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Look.  I get it.  You said something you shouldn't have.  It happens.

 

You’re playing a semantic game because you can’t argue against the record.

Happens.

[Bill Brown]

9 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I didn’t say Humes et al concluded JFK was hit with a high tech weapon — I used the phrase “seriously considered.”

“A general feeling” is not a conclusion.  Never said it was.

You’re playing a semantic game because you can’t argue against the record.

Happens.

 

"I didn’t say Humes et al concluded JFK was hit with a high tech weapon — I used the phrase “seriously considered.”

 

No Sir.  You stated what you mistakenly believed "Humes et al" actually THOUGHT.

 

Here is exactly what you said: "The autopsists thought JFK was hit with a high tech weapon, rounds that wouldn’t show up on x-Ray or in the body."

 

I then called that statement "pure nonsense".

 

Judging by your own backpedaling, it seems you now realize how nonsensical your original statement was.

 

Moving on.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"I didn’t say Humes et al concluded JFK was hit with a high tech weapon — I used the phrase “seriously considered.”

 

No Sir.  You stated what you mistakenly believed "Humes et al" actually THOUGHT.

Which I defined as “seriously considered”.

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Here is exactly what you said: "The autopsists thought JFK was hit with a high tech weapon, rounds that wouldn’t show up on x-Ray or in the body."

 

I then called that statement "pure nonsense".

 

Judging by your own backpedaling, it seems you now realize how nonsensical your original statement was.

To define “thought” exclusively as “concluded” demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the language.

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

Sure thing.

From the Pathological Examination Report:

"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck.  This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung.  The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck.  As far as can be ascertained, this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."

Is this some kind of silly joke? After all the evidence that has been discussed, how can you seriously quote the third version of the autopsy report??? Seriously? Did you still not read all the accounts of the probing and of the pathologists' positive, certain determination that the back wound had no exit point? Have you still not read the documentation that shows that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat?

The problem is that you are determined to see the emperor's new clothes, no matter much how evidence proves he's naked. You brush aside numerous independent and mutually corroborating accounts and cite the third version of the autopsy report. Unbelievable. You are not to be taken seriously on this issue. 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

The unchallenged facts:

JFK suffered two shallow wounds in soft tissue.

The CIA employed weapons leaving shallow wounds in soft tissue.

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The unchallenged facts:

JFK suffered two shallow wounds in soft tissue.

The CIA employed weapons leaving shallow wounds in soft tissue.

 

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Gerry Down]

8 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Huh??? This is your answer to the accounts of the probing??? Or did you write this without reading the accounts? Are you aware that we've known for years that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat? Doug Horne has documented this in great detail (Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume 3, 2010 printing, pp. 845-871).

By the way, Secret Service agent Bill Greer, who was present for the entire autopsy, is yet another witness who heard nothing about the back wound having an exit point during the autopsy:

          Specter: Was anything said about any channel being present in the body for the bullet to have gone on through the back?
          Greer: No, sir; I hadn't heard anything like that, any trace of it going on
through. (2 H 127) 

I've quoted Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB testimony and O'Neill's HSCA interview, but let's see what they said just four days after the autopsy in their report on the autopsy:

          During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders. . . . This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger, at which time it was
determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger. (Francis O'Neill and James Sibert, "Autopsy of Body of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 11/26/1963, p. 4, LINK)

Well, no wonder the WC ignored this report, did not include it in the published hearings and exhibits, and buried it in the National Archives, where Harold Weisberg discovered it in 1966. 

But let's get even closer to the time of the autopsy. Sibert and O'Neill sent a telegram to FBI Director Hoover at 2:00 AM on 11/23/1963, just hours after the autopsy, and therein they said the back wound was located below the shoulder and was a shallow wound that had no exit point:

          One bullet hole located just below shoulders to right of spinal column, and hand probing indicated trajectory at angle of 45 to 60 degrees downward and hole of short depth with no point of exit. (O'Neill and Sibert, FBI teletype: Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 11/23/1963, p. 1, ARRB document MD 149)

 

I don't see what all the fuss is about.

At the autopsy the autopsy doctors couldn't find an exit point for the back wound. LNers posit this is because the back muscles of JFK had swelled and were not positioned at the autopsy in such a way as they were at Z224 when JFKs right arm was in a raised position. Thereofore the autopsy doctors failed to mimick and trace the bullet path at the autopsy.

Humes completed the autopsy and handed the body over to the morticians. Everyone present, including Greer and the FBI agents thought no exit point had been found for the bullet.

Then Humes phones Dr. Perry and Perry reveals the throat wound was a gunshot wound and only then Humes realizes the back wound had exited out the throat. But by then the body had been handed over to the morticians. 

Humes never wrote in the autopsy report that it was only after handing the body over to the morticians that he realized he had made a mistake at the autopsy. And naturally did not want to include that mistake in the autopsy report and so doesn't include it. 

[Michael Crane]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Jenkins told Valuetainment Youtuber that he personally witnessed the President's body arriving in a plain metal shipping casket, about one hour before the official arrival or the fancy casket.

This is endlessly mysterious. If true, that suggests the President body was never in the fancy casket, but was switched out in somewhere in Dallas before the fancy casket was placed on Air Force 1.

Maybe the plain metal casket flew on Air Force 2. 

I think that you will find that alot of researchers will believe that JFK might have been whisked away under darkness in a helicopter parked next to Air Force One.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Michael Crane]

Sorry for the hijack Cliff,but I would like Ben to listen to this video.

Ben,I'm glad that you have watched the video with James Jenkins & Pat David because it was informative.It was one of the 3 that I was talking about.

I was able to locate the long James Jenkins interview that I was looking for but,I'd like for you to watch this one also.

 

 

Edited June 4, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Cory Santos]

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"The night of the autopsy Humes et al seriously considered the possibility JFK was hit with a high tech weapon."

 

What are you failing to understand here?  You stated that Humes et al THOUGHT Kennedy was hit with a high tech weapon firing missiles which would not show up in an X-ray.

 

I am telling you that they considered all possibilities, yes.  But that is not to say that they actually thought it was true or that they ever believed it.

 

You twist reality in order to get it to fit your foolishness.  Just stop.

 

Just admit you had no clue about this until my prior house guest Cliff schooled you.  It’s ok.